Anorak

Anorak | Chelsea Balls: John Terry ‘Takes A Pay Cut’ To Reduce Ticket Prices And Hell Freezes Over

Chelsea Balls: John Terry ‘Takes A Pay Cut’ To Reduce Ticket Prices And Hell Freezes Over

by | 6th, November 2014

cash

 

TO Chelsea, where, as the Sun reprots, “JOHN TERRY vows this week to speak to Chelsea’s board of directors about the sky-high ticket prices at his club.”

Good old JT, sticking up for the fans.

But the Chelsea players are hoovering up all that cash – “69 per cent of it [income] went on wages.”

Dillon adds:

Extortionate ticket prices in the Premier League are not his fault either and he is not the biggest earner at his club, that honour goes to Eden Hazard who just signed a brand new five year deal worth around £200,000 PER WEEK. Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck could produce a simple answer to Terry’s admirable motive – TAKE A PAY CUT.

And that’s it. Chelsea pay what they can and charge what the fans can stand.

…one Premier League chairman told me this week that clubs could look at reducing ticket prices for fans were the players paid less and it doesn’t look too difficult to work that one out.

But they are not paid less. The player works for teh club. He’s a hired hand. The club could offer less money and see if players accept it. And if Cheslea fans are happy with the Blues fielding a side earnign £3,000 a week, then fine. Enjoy your Third Division football.

Dillon adds:

…the highest paid players such as Wayne Rooney, who earns around £15m a year need to look at themselves and decided whether they really do need any more money?

It’s not up to them what they get paid. It’s up to their employer.

And also they need to consider how much longer the punters are going to fall for that whiskery Roy of the Rovers old line that they would play for nothing because they just love football so much.

I love journbalism. I love football. Should the Sun sack Dillon and hire writes who will work for less, or for nothing more than the joy of watching the game, meeting the players and commenting on the game? Or should the Sun hire the best talent it can get and strive to best its rivals?

It is right that footballers earn more than the national average wage of £26,500.

Yes. It is. Unless the market alters and clubs can no longer afford to top the national average. Maybe then Chelsea can hire interns to play, like modern media does, getting free labour to pick up the slack when falling revenues have struck.

The Mirror has more:

Despite a £1.78billion pay bill last year, not a single top-flight club has committed to giving all ground staff and suppliers the £7.65-an-hour “living wage”.

Pampered players can earn eight-figure annual salaries – with England and Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, 29, pulling in £300,000 a week and Manchester City’s Argentinian forward Sergio Aguero, 26, £220,000 a week.

Veteran Labour MP Frank Field has written to all 20 Premier League clubs demanding action.

But he got just six replies – with not one club committing to the full rate. Sunderland said the issue “did not merit further discussion”.

MPs have just handed themselves a 10% pay rise.

Should MPS salaries be profits related? No. Of course not.

Back to football money, then.

Ami Sedghi:

The Premier League clubs collectively made a loss of £291m in 2012-13 despite a £2.7bn income and spent a record £1.8bn on wages.

David Conn:

Players earning multi-million pound salaries were again football’s clear financial winners, in a year when the clubs made a record £2.7bn combined income, yet nevertheless made a loss overall, of £291m.

The real problem with football is that the money at the top does not trickle down. The Premier League a cash hoover. The FA never saw it coming:

We are heading into a world where only 10 people can compete,’ said an Arsenal spokesman. ‘The implications behind that are significant. Not living within your means is the fundamental risk for the game. It is scary for football as a whole. It is not sustainable.’

In 1992, Premier League pay was 3.7 times more than the lowest tier. In 2010, it was 30 times

Let’s end with a word on John Terry’s Chelsea.

Paul Marshall:

Chelsea’s fortunes were transformed when they were taken over by a Russian oligarch in 2003. The origins of Roman Abramovich’s wealth are controversial but they are not questioned by Chelsea fans. Why should they? He has brought unparalleled success. Money talks.

Manchester City are second favourites. Relegated as recently as 1998, their fortunes have been transformed by Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi. The various Gulf States are increasingly active investors in the UK. They primarily target trophy assets, such as Harrods, or prime real estate, such as the Shard. But they also invest in British companies, most notably saving Barclays from probable state bailout in 2008. We should welcome these investments, even if they distort some of our asset markets.

What both these clubs have in common is that they have made very little investment in English players. Their transfer budgets are overwhelmingly directed overseas. Manchester City have announced a major commitment to investing in home-grown talent but this will take years to bear fruit. In the meantime, they and Chelsea are sporting symbols of the historic failure of UK plc to create a skills-based economy that can compete in the “global race”.

Football is another country…

 



Posted: 6th, November 2014 | In: Chelsea, Money, Sports Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink